SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Redfish]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.

Yes, but using that logic, every justice that has officiated at a hetero wedding should do the same, n'est ce pas?

 

[Statistikhengst]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.

The fact that she's gay herself would be enough for recusal.

Which would of course mean that the Justices who are hetero should recuse themselves as well, n'est ce pas?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition. That would be proper judicial restraint.

Not true.

How many times do I need to post this before the phobes get it?

 

[Katzndogz]

I would be enormously surprised if these justices did not uphold same sex marriage. Then overturn incest laws. Then lower the age of consent to ten. Then issue business licenses for animal brothels like was done in Germany.

 

[martybegan]

It will go 6-3 in favor

5-4 against forcing states to change their own marriage contract.
7-2 in favor of forcing states to accept valid marriage contracts from other states, no matter what they allow.

 

[Pete7469]

The fact that she's gay herself would be enough for recusal.

I don't think she's gay. She's a hobbit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Well of course they are.

Duh.

Very telling that some believe equal rights, as guaranteed by our constitution is "something radical".

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times. Are you phobes okay with that?

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

"The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition."

Nope. We already know it is and your opinion to the contrary doesn't matter EXCEPT that you probably should not marry someone of the same sex.

Not to mention that SCOTUS is not qualified to make that determination. Nor is it their job.

 

[Marxist]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.

To gays and their suckophants any opposition can only be motivated by religious bigotry or hatred.

To be honest, it is. Or some deep rooted homophobia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sassy (who has not captured Route Irish) EconChick, of course the Court is divided.

 

[g5000]

Looks like SCOTUS ruling in favor of SSM isn't the lock the homos led everyone to believe. Roberts nailed it. Kennedy is all over the map, he's obviously conflicted.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

Speaking of conflicted, Justice Roberts also said, “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It will go 6-3 in favor

Wait a minute. Wasn't Kagan recused from this argument, or did she not recuse herself?

Perhaps I read something erroneously in the last days.

I was busy writing a small book somewhere else.

she should recuse because she officiated a gay wedding, but she hasn't. She clearly has a conflict of interest.

The fact that she's gay herself would be enough for recusal.

I don't know if she is gay (neither do you) but by your logic, the straight judges should recuse themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

Limited thought of a limited mind.

 

[Redfish]

It will go 6-3 in favor

5-4 against forcing states to change their own marriage contract.
7-2 in favor of forcing states to accept valid marriage contracts from other states, no matter what they allow.

too much confusion would result from such a ruling. I refuse to predict what they will decide. The said Obozocare was legal to there is no telling where they will go with this one.

 

[Stephanie]

They better stay out of this. This isn't a case for them as it had NOTHING to do with our Constitutional laws.

They rule on this we might as will hang it up and just turn over our Lives to the judges in Black robes.

 

[Marxist]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.

Yes there is, two loving members of the same sex want to get married, yes, genders do matter, when it comes to fucking, what does it matter there? Marriage destruction? LOL. Do you think two gay men getting married destroys marriage? You must have a shitty marriage then.

 

[Redfish]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

Limited thought of a limited mind.

yes, that describes most of your posts quite accurately. thanks for the honesty.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

There's no logical reason to have same sex marriage. Genders matter. So homophobia is now defined as fear of marriage destruction? You have a unique dictionary.

To gays and their suckophants any opposition can only be motivated by religious bigotry or hatred.

Religion is a convenient excuse for the phobes.

Their opposition is really just that they think its icky and want the Constitution to include that wording.

 

[g5000]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition.

"We've always discriminated against this group" is the worst excuse there is. And one of the Justices rightly pointed out the same argument was used to defend discrimination against blacks.

Same bullshit, different decade.

 

[jillian]

Looks like SCOTUS ruling in favor of SSM isn't the lock the homos led everyone to believe. Roberts nailed it. Kennedy is all over the map, he's obviously conflicted.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

Who on earth ever said Scalia and his brother wackos we're going to rule in favor of civil rights?